Performance analysis

More specifically this manuscript will discuss performance indicators in football from a scientific point of view.

Statistics in football/performance analysis seemed to be present for a long time, ~40 years (69). While paper and pencil was used in earlier days, software solutions like ProZone allow a more
in-depth analysis of football games.

What are the “common” performance measurements?

A performance indicator is a selection, or combination, of action variables that aims to define some aspects of a performance in a given sport and, these performance indicators, should relate to
successful performance or outcome (14, 35).

Utilizing this definition it seems necessary to define “action variables”, which we have then categorized into physical/physiological, technical, tactical and others parameter and will discuss
them individually.

Physical/physiological parameters

Physical capacity of players seemed to be a key factor in match performance, despite the fact that non-successful teams covered greater distance in high-speed movement activity (10), which
suggests that factors other than physical performance represented are more important in achieving success.

Non-significant differences were seen in body composition (48). However there were also significant differences between players from successful compared to unsuccessful teams. Differences were
seen in strength and power (5, 16, 19, 94) measures such as countermovement jump, leg extension etc.

Further information stated that improved physical capacity of players influence technical ability (71), namely increased pass rates and therefore might indirectly improve performance indicators
(31). Studies in England (20) and Italy (66) have reported an association between physical output and final league ranking (10). More specifically, match activity such as high-speed running in
relation to league position at the end of the playing season have been used to provide an indication to which physical performance can influence the ‘success’ of teams. However, total run
distance was not associated with the final result (37).

It seems obvious that the physical capacity needs to be the foundation for “being ready to play” – as different playing style will have influence on the physical demands on the players (8).

In return, being “not fit” or not ready to play also suggest that injuries will have an impact in performance and it was shown that successful teams had significant less injuries compared to
non-successful team (5).

Time-motion analysis

It seems evident that “fit” players can cover greater distance if needed, disregarding of level of play. For example, researchers (9) suggested that distance covered at high intensity are more
valid measure of physical performance in soccer because of their strong relationship with training status (42, 43) or level of play (59).

However, generally, time-motion analysis parameters were also influenced by many factors (such as score line, ball possession, opponent) and therefore might not be an appropriate performance
indicator.

Technical parameters

Similar to the physical/physiological parameters, technical elements are very important in football and most of the time these parameters (such as shots on goal…) are very easy to measure
reliably. This kind of analysis is called notational analysis (35).

It seems obvious that there is a link between number of goals scored, and more importantly number of goals conceded (12) and success in football. However, the relationship seems not so clear with
regards to other parameters such as shots on goal and passes completed (and others) and the final result of a game. In accordance to Hughes and Bartlett (35) we have divided into passes, tackles
and shots.

PassesNumber of passes
Overall number of passes (76), pass attempts during net playing time (76) and overall number of correct passes were figured as important factors in achieving better results (37, 49). Longer
passing sequences are a more efficient way of scoring goals compared to shorter passing sequences in elite Australian football (38).

Types of passes
Types of passes were not seen as a performance indicator (37, 77, 79). However, Successful teams were able to execute a wider variety of passes as a tool to create shots, making them less
predictable and being able to shoot more frequently (33). Crosses and chips were used more significantly by successful teams compared to unsuccessful teams (33).

Passes into specific areas
Penetrative passes into the box and the 6 yard area seemed to increase the number of shots on goal and consequently number of goals (30) offensively. Interestingly, unsuccessful teams tended to
play significantly more passes in(to) the pre-defensive area (77).

Pass accuracy
There is not doubt that pass accuracy is an important performance indicator in football in general. For example it was shown that the pass accuracy was significant higher 5 minutes before scoring
(67). Pass accuracy not only retains possession, but may also lead to scoring opportunities while also restricting possessions and scoring opportunities of the opposition (67).

Pass to opposition/interceptions
There seemed to be no evidence about pass to opposition/interception as performance indicator. It seems not clear if the interception are a consequence of the inability to pass accurately or good
movement from the opponent (or a combination of both) (60). However, we believe everyone can agree that low number of opposition and high number of interception might help to succeed in the game.

Tackles won/lost
Limited research is available for tackles won/lost in connection with performance in football. Interestingly, it is not reported that number of successful tackles links to success, however the
number of tackles and the total fouls discriminated between top tiers and lower ranked teams (62). Additionally, a low number of successful tackles defensively may have contributed to a high
number of conceding goals (60).

Shots on/off target
Disregarding success, home teams have 26% more shots, however the success rates for the shots do not differ from away teams (80). Successful teams have a greater number of shots (13, 50), shots
on target (13, 50), but more importantly a better rate for number of shots per goal (24, 50) offensively, but also a lower rate of shots and shots on their own goal (13).

Furthermore, the area/zone of scoring attempt were also presented: The penalty area (44.4%), goal area (32.2%) and outside the box (20.4%) were chosen for goals (96), however 90% of all goals was
scored inside the penalty area for the 1986 World Cup (63), whilst it was 80% for the World Cup 1990 and 81.8% for goal scoring attempts appeared in the penalty area for Greek domestic football
(82, 95).

Tactical parameter

Ball possession
Generally, ball possession seemed to influenced by situational variables (49). As a result, the variable was influenced by the game status (winning and drawing), match location (home teams have
greater possession than away teams) and quality of opponent (less possession against “good” teams (49).

Despite the mentioned, it was thought that ball possession is of central importance to success in football, however questions remain about its impact on positive team outcomes (15). It
seems that in domestic play, ball possession is an important performance indicator (-especially in England and Spain) (44, 46, 49, 86).

However, when opponent quality and home advantage was accounted for, ball possession was not a good performance indicator anymore (15).

Nonetheless, successful teams had more possession in general (13, 17, 33, 37, 39, 49, 68), however, also when a) winning and drawing (70) or even when losing or drawing (15), compared to
unsuccessful teams. There was no difference between successful and non-successful teams for ball possession when winning (36).

Ball possession in a certain are of the pitch
Ball possession in certain area of the pitch seems to be influenced by the score line (72), showing less ball possession for the scoring team in the attacking and middle thirds compared to the
average for the half (72). On the contraire, the conceding team significantly increased its possession in the middle and attacking third and decreased the possession in its own defensive third.
Furthermore, pre-goal possession showed that the scoring team had significant more possession in the middle and attacking third (72).

Zone 14 also seemed to have a crucial role in football, more specifically, ball possession (and also its effective usage) (71).

Interestingly, unsuccessful teams played more passes in the pre-defensive area (before the half-way line) (78).

Ball possession as a sequence
In the study by Hughes et al. (34), the number of passes that led to goals scored in two FIFA World Cup finals were analyzed. It seemed as there were more goals scored from longer passing
sequences than from shorter passing sequences. Longer possession resulted in more shots per possession; however, the strike ratio of goals from shots was better for “direct play” compared to
“possession play”. Successful teams scored more often from longer possession (compared to short(er)) possession (34).

Possession lengths of 3 to 7 passes seemed more likely to produce goals than shorter and longer length possessions (60).

Attacking third entries
Attacking third entries was mentioned to be a performance indicator discriminating successful from unsuccessful teams (70).

Tactical ability / formation / playing style

As a clarification, we will not discuss individual tactics despite its importance on the group efficacy (40).

Despite hard to quantify, it seems evident that the tactical ability, the formation and the playing style play a role as performance indicators. For example, interception of an opponent pass and
subsequent fast counter-attack would all be considered as key sports behaviors (57).

Therefore, the following paragraphs will focus not only on tactical behavior (such as ball possession above) but also on how these tactical parameters are achieved.

The so-called game modeling has been used (42, 58) to detect game patterns distinguishing successful from non-successful teams (28).

We have sort them into offensive and defensive patterns, but also highlighting the transitional phase (and pressing).

Offensively
Team offensive play in sequences ending in a shot on goal are influenced by situational variables (such as numerical relationship between attack and defense players) (64).

However, offensive actions play a key role in football. More specifically, organized offense presented the highest frequency in goal scoring, followed by set pieces (35.6%) and counterattacks
(20.3%) (96). Furthermore, 80% of goals scored after short duration attacks, and players touched the ball a maximum of 3 (29) or 4 (34) times.

As many shots (on goal)/goals are performed from the area directly in front of the penalty area (zone 14) as well as many assists derived from that zone (32), it seems logical to penetrate that
zone as much as possible or enter the final third (70). 64% of possessions within that zone derived from ball possession of between 0.5-2.5 seconds (32). 46% of off-target attempts from zone 14
were from possessions of just one second (70). However, it was also reported that not the amount of possession, but its effective usage/conversion distinguished between successful and
non-successful teams (70).

Zone 14

Obviously crosses are also effective to increase shots on goal (41) as mentioned above 90% of all goals was scored inside the penalty area for the 1986 World Cup (63), whilst it was 80% for the
World Cup 1990 and 81.8% for goal scoring attempts appeared in the penalty area for Greek domestic football (82, 95).

A mixture of short and long passes seems to be a promising way to build up attacks and furthermore scoring from short and long distances increases complexity of defending. Especially short passes
seemed to be reliable in keeping ball possession (62).

Transition
Transition seems to be of high importance in football (92) as the team that just lost the ball is in a (more or less) unorganized/variable situation which was proven to have significant effect on
conceding goals (27, 88).

Pressure applied to players having the ball seemed to be crucial in the mid-offensive zone, as these actions preceded “successful finishing” (70), defined as shots on target (54). The goals
scored were mainly preceded by behaviors in zones near the opposition goal. Pressing was seen as a key index in/around the box and in general pressed player are less affected and therefore less
dangerous (84).

Defensively, recovery of the ball was seen as a performance indicator (6).

Defensively
It appears that individual defense's ability of teams to control the opposing team's movements will greatly affects on success in Football (25).

A scientific measure was the longitudinal and lateral inter-team distances, centroid position, and the area of the team span on the pitch (27).

Additional thoughts
There seems to be also another type of research in performance analysis, which in this case also discusses tactical ability. The so-called “ecological dynamics” display self-organizing systems
and therefore critique the notational systems. The results in this research (93) states how attackers try to break symmetry with their nearest opponents, as defenders seek to maintain system
symmetry by remaining between their own goal and the immediate attacker.

Individuals influence tactical ability/performance of a team. As a result, research constructed “ball flow” to investigate the importance of individuals in a team structure and seems able to
demonstrate that flow centrality provide a powerful objective quantification of individual and further team performance (23).

Factors influencing performance

Performance seems to be a very specific index that is influenced by many variables and therefore should be considered in that context.

We also want to state that the factors interfere and therefore some limitations will be present with regards to given references.

Opponent (Successful vs. non-successful teams regarding final latter ranking)
The opponent will have great influence on performance indicators (22, 26, 46, 64). Obviously, the magnitude of influence needs to be considered with regards to your own team’s ability and the
opponent. Therefore, many research has investigated with regards to final league standing and as a consequences distinguished between successful and non-successful teams. Successful teams were
significant different compared non-successful teams in:

Furthermore it was distinguished between successful and non-successful teams taking other variables (such as score-line) into account that influence performance indicators.

Especially ball possession seemed to be discussed in this context, revealing some conflicting results. Generally, The successful teams had longer possessions than unsuccessful teams when winning
and drawing (39, 70) and no difference were seen when losing. However, successful teams were also observed having longer ball possessions in general (36, 46). Interestingly, unsuccessful teams
had lower ball possession when winning compared to loosing (70) however both successful and unsuccessful teams had longer durations of possession when they were losing matches compared to when
winning (39).

Successful teams preferred using a pass on the ground into the final third compared with unsuccessful teams, who used aerial passes pre-dominantly (70). Successful teams were also more efficient
than their opponents at scoring from set-plays (95).

Score line - Winning vs. drawing vs. losing
Obviously, scoring more then the opponent equals the ultimate performance indicator (14, 95). Especially scoring first was seen as a strong impact on final outcome (3).

However, it was also reported that the score line (if your team is winning or losing) influence performance indicator such as ball possession or distance covered (44, 45, 87).

When loosing, the teams showed the tendency to improve ball possession in mid offensive zones (7). When winning, teams frequently performed defence/attack transition behaviors to get closer to
the opponent goal (7). While drawing, teams tended to vary the offensive methods to score a goal (6). The most frequent position to shoot was the center position.

Winning teams showed different profiles from drawing and losing teams in terms of recovering the ball in their own half (center area) and to use penetrative passes into the opponents box (30).

Match location (home vs. away)
I guess everyone has experienced “home advantage” in some stage in his career (22, 30, 80). The home team created significant more possession (44, 46), greater number of turnovers and
crosses (30, 91), corners, passes and shots in the attacking third and in general exhibited more behaviors linked with success such as won tackles, passes completed and won aerial
challenges (91). The home team also covered more distance in low-intensity activities (45).

Type of competition (League vs. knock-out system)
There is limited evidence of the type of competition on performance indicators. However, from coaching experience it seems warranted that one of the best teams will win a league (with consist
performance over a long(er) period of time), while during a knock-out stage (like in national cups or international tournaments) it seems that the team with suppose to have lower performance also
have a chance to win. Lagos et al. (51) stated for knockout stages the role of performance is less important, as there were no statistically significant differences in the performance obtained by
winners and losers (51). However, other research (81) shows the importance of consistent performance over all games of a tournament.

Game period
It seemed that game period had an effect on performance parameters (4, 64). Game period had significant effects on the length of offensive actions, the distance covered (64) and more goals were
scored as time progresses. The above could be explained by the deterioration in physical conditioning, the tactical play, fluid balance and lapses in concentration (4).

Other factors
In the following paragraphs we would like to list (additional) others factors that will influence performance and therefore its indicators.

Training (hours) experience
Experienced players circulated the ball more in SSG resulting in longer offensive sequences from the entire team, while the non-experienced participants performed faster offensive sequences with
a predominance of individual actions (1).

Anthropometry
Body mass and muscle mass was related to the total distance covered (73). Moreover, players from successful teams were found to be leaner and more muscular than their unsuccessful counterparts
(48).

Psychological factors
Psychological factors were not really discussed throughout the literature, however it was seen that emotional intelligence scores predict team sports performance in national cricket (18).
Emotional intelligence is involved in the capacity to perceive emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, understand the information of those emotions, and manage them (56). Emotional
intelligence helps individual team members in order to deal with interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts, enhance communication and commitment, and to accomplish team goals (21). We speculate
that emotional intelligence might be seen as a psychological factor in football performance as well.

Fatigue
There is only limited evidence about the effect of fatigue on performance indicators. Fatigue that players appear towards the end of a game, which consequently leads to goal scoring by the
opponent team (97). Fatigue affected soccer skills (66, 75) in footballers. The assumption was that pass accuracy is reduced, therefore ball possession and as a consequence the ability to control
the match (and therefore performance).

Dismissal
Dismissals will have an effect on performance indicators (11). Players need to cover greater distance, have less recovery time between high-intensity efforts and have more activity, especially in
the moderate-intensity level (11).

Set-pieces
Dead-ball situations can play a significant role in match outcome. For example up to ~36% of all goals were scored through set-pieces (95, 96).

Not necessarily related to match outcome, however still interesting was the investigation by Pulling et al. (65), who investigated zonal vs. 1-on-1 marking in corners. The authors’ results showed
no significant association between the marking set-up and the number of attempts at goal conceded when defending corner kicks. However, teams who applied zonal marking conceded fewer goals and
fewer attempts at goal than teams who used one-to-one marking.

Who scores the goals
Interestingly, in successful teams, 62% of the goals are scored by typical attacking players (33). Whereas in unsuccessful teams only 25% of the goals are scored by the same kind of players.

Gender differences
There seemed to be gender differences in performance indicators. One factor seemed to be the physical/physiological differences, which might be responsible for successful long-range shots for
example (2). The women used more heading in general and tried to get closer to the goal before trying to score (2).

Dribbling seemed to be the most important skill to creating scoring opportunities, followed by first touch, passing, and individual defense (90).

Conclusion

Performance (and therefore its indicators) needs to be considered with regards to several situational variables (such as quality of opponent, location of match, type of competition and game
period). In addition, first goal and in general score-line and dismissals will also have an effect on performance. As a result, key performance index seemed to change during the game (22,
45, 87). It seems that teams need to develop a specific performance index (such as how to enter the attacking third) for a specific opponent, at a specific location, in a specific type of
competition for a specific time during the match.

Furthermore, the performance index might be individual to specific positions as the technical (85) and physical (61) demands differ. For example, target strikers have different movements (amount
and intensity), different technical skills (such as ball possession) compared to central midfielders. However, their shots on goal will be more crucial as they are usually positioned closer to
the goal and therefore have greater chance to score.

Generally, efficacy seems to be key offensively (goals per shots) as well as defensively (gaining re-possession quickly) (50, 78). Ball possession (to us) seems to be important in controlling the
game, however, not necessarily as an important performance indicator. As it seems having ball possession for a long time does not ensure goals scoring, however is very effective way to control
the game when winning.

Creating/cover spaces over large distance on the pitch offensively seems to create opportunities for individual players and therefore lowers chances for interceptions, however, simultaneously
increase the demand and the complexity of re-organizing the defense when losing the ball. As a result, counterattacking is a very effective way to win a game, especially for “lower-ranked” in
certain situations (away games, less comfortable with ball possession etc).

Set pieces are very important and can decide about winning or loosing as well. Additionally, it seems warrant to scout the opponent and not only to research our own team (88).

4. Armatas, V., A. Yiannakos, and P. Sileloglou, Relationship between time and goal scoring in soccer games: Analysis of three World Cups. International Journal of Performance
Analysis in Sport, 2007. 7(2): 48-58.

29. Garganta, J., J. Maia, and F. Basto. Analysis of goal-scoring patterns in European top level soccer teams. in Third World Congress of Science and Soccer. 1997. London: E
& FN.

30. Gomez, M.A., et al., Effects of game location and final outcome on game-related statistics in each zone of the pitch in professinal football. European Journal of Sport
Science, 2012. 12(5): 393-398.

36. James, N., P.D. Jones, and S.D. Mellalieu, Possession as a performance indicator in soccer as a function of successful and unsuccessful teams. Journal of Sport Sciences,
2004. 22(6): 507-508.

37. Jankovic, A., et al., Influence of certain tactical attacking patterns on the result achieved by the teams participants of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Physical
Culture, 2010. 65(1): 34-45.

38. Johnson, K. and A. Murphy, Passing and goal scoring characteristics in the Australian A-League. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2010. 12: e118.

48. Lago-Penas, C., et al., Anthropometric and physiological characteristics of young soccer players according to their playing positions: relevance for competition success.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2011. 25(12): 3358-3367.

49. Lago-Penas, C. and A. Dellal, Ball possession strategies in elite soccer according to the evolution of the match-score: the influence of situational variables. Journal of
Human Kinetics, 2010. 25: 93-100.

61. O'Donoghue, P.G., Time-motion analysis of work-rate in English FA Premier League soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2002. 2(1): 36-43.

62. Oberstone, J., Differentiating the top English Premier League Football Clubs from the rest of the pack: Identifying the keys to success. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in
Sports, 2009. 5(3): Article 10.

67. Redwood-Brown, A., Passing patterns before and after goal scoring in FA Premier League Soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2008. 8(3):
172-182.

68. Redwood-Brown, A., C. Bussell, and H.B. Singh, The impact of different standards of opponents on observed player performance in the English Premier League. Journal of Human
Sport and Exercise, 2012. 7(2): 341-355.

70. Rees, G., et al., The effect of match status on attacking strategies in the English Championship, in Research Methods and Performance Analysis, M. Hughes, et al., Editors.
2011, University of West Hungary. p. 172-177.

71. Rees, G., et al., The use of zone 14 as a strategic attacking area in the English Championship, in Research Methods and Performance Analysis, M. Hughes, et al., Editors.
2011, University of West Hungary. p. 205-211.

72. Ridgewell, A., Passing patterns before and after scoring in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2011. 11(3): 562-574.

75. Russell, M., D. Benton, and M. Kingsley, The effects of fatigue on soccer skills performed during a soccer match simulation. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 2011. 6(2): 221-233.

76. Saito, K., M. Yoshimura, and T. Ogiwara, Pass appearance time and pass attempts by teams qualifying for the second stage of FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa. Football
Science, 2013. 10: 65-69.

86. Taylor, J.B., S.D. Mellalieu, and N. James, A comparison of individual and unit tactical behaviour and team strategy in professional soccer. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 2005. 5(2): 87-110.

89. Tenga, A. and E. Sigmundstad, Characteristics of goal-scoring possessions in open play: Comparing the top, in-between and bottom teams form professional soccer league.
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2011. 11(3): 545-552.

90. Thomas, C., G. Fellingham, and P. Vehrs, Development of a notational analysis system for selected soccer skills of a Women’s college team. Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science, 2009. 13: 108-121.

92. Turner, B.J. and M.G.L. Sayers, The influence of transition speed on event outcomes in a high performance football team. International Journal of Performance Analysis in
Sport, 2010. 10(3): 207-220.